The Indiana Court of Appeals released four new opinions online today.

• In Re: G.N.
• America’s Directories Incorporated v. One Hour Photo d/b/a Stellhorn One Hour Photo
• Citizens Financial Services v. Innsbrook Country Club
• Valerie Cox v. Michael Cox

The Indiana Family Law Blog has more on the Cox v. Cox decision in a post titled, “Maintenance orders versus maintenance agreements.” It concludes, “Careful drafting to include the provision for trial court modification of a maintenance agreement may be prudent.” Meanwhile the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has posted six new opinions.

• USA v. Todd, Vincent: A jury convicted defendant-appellant Vincent Todd of attempting to board an airplane with a stun gun in violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 46505. He appealed, arguing that his conviction should be vacated because he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel and the prosecution failed to timely produce evidence that was favorable to his defense. The 7th Cir. rejected both arguments and affirmed Todd’s conviction.
• Schneider, Janet M. v. Sentry Group: Janet M. Schneider claimed that defendants Sentry Life Insurance Company, Sentry Group Long Term Disability Plan and Sentry Group Supplemental Disability Insurance Plan violated ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., when her disability benefits were terminated. The district court granted Sentry’s motion for summary judgment. But the 7th Cir. reversed the judgment on the grounds that a letter Ms. Schneider received did not fulfill the purpose of the statute, which was to “afford the beneficiary an explanation of the denial of benefits that is adequate to ensure meaningful review of that denial.”
• Rufkin-Thompkins, MA v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
• Martin, Walter H. v. USA
• DH2, Inc. v. SEC
• Delougherty, Dolores v. City of Chicago

Maureen Hayden of the Evansville Courier & Press files a report titled, “Ruling puts commandments on display in Gibson.”

A federal judge has ruled the Ten Commandments monument on the Gibson County courthouse lawn in Princeton, Ind., meets the new constitutional test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark rulings this summer on the public display of the biblical edicts. The order, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge Richard L. Young in Evansville, reverses his earlier decision in January ordering the monument’s removal.

The ruling follows two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in June on the subject in Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. In McCreary County, the Court, by a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional displays of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses. In Van Orden, in a 5-4 decision without a majority opinion, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument that sits between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court. Only Justice Breyer saw a distinction between the two.

Ten Commandment display controversies are not new to Indiana. In March the Seventh Circuit held a display of the framed text of the King James version of the Ten Commandments in a county building was constitutional. It was one of nine historical pieces that make up a “Foundations of American Law and Government Display” in the County Administration Building in Elkhart County, Indiana. You can access a pdf version of the ruling here. The Goshen News offers some background in an earlier article titled “Ten Commandments ordered removed from county display.” An earlier Ten Commandments monument in Elkhart County met a different fate in the Seventh Circuit in late 2000.

Update: Marcia Oddi has posted the opinion and links to other media reports on the ruling.

Today the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear Stephen C. Hilbert et al vs. Conseco Services, LLC in Pruis Hall at Ball State University.

Conseco Services, LLC, brought an action against Stephen Hilbert, individually and as the trustee of a number of Hilbert trusts, seeking repayment of money paid on behalf of him and them as interest on their purchase of more than $162 million in Conseco, Inc. stock from 1996 through 1999. The lawsuit alleged that not only had the trusts and Hilbert breached the agreements to repay this money but also that this breach was a default of the mortgage on Hilbert’s mansion in Carmel – thereby warranting an order of foreclosure. The trial court’s order granted Conseco Services (1) a judgment against the trusts in the amount of $65, 712, 557. 85 plus interest, (2) a judgment in that amount against Hilbert personally, and (3) a decree of foreclosure on the mansion. Hilbert appeals the order, arguing that , for various reasons, he and the trusts should not have to repay this money and that, therefore, the decree of foreclosure is erroneous.

Wednesday’s New York Times contained a story titled, “The Squeezing of Lawyer-Client Privilege.” Reporter Jonathan Glater writes, “powerful forces have put in play the privilege protecting communications, as well as the so-called work product privilege covering documents and other work by a lawyer in anticipation of litigation.”

Children and pregnant women cannot be included in pesticide testing on humans, according to a proposed rule (pdf) released Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency. Under the proposed regulations, an independent oversight board would be charged with ensuring that all studies used by the agency were ethically conducted and in accordance with international standards. The proposed rule is a response to a canceled agency program that studied the impact of pesticides on children.

The rule is now subject to a 90-day public comment period, with the EPA hoping to implement a final version by January. The EPA has a news release and additional materials on the proposed rule. Here’s more from the Associated Press.

On Tuesday the California legislature voted to to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, making the state’s legislature the first in the nation to deliberately approve same-sex marriages. However California Family Code sec. 308.5, enacted by the voters as Prop. 22 in 2000, provides:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This is an initiative statute, not a constitutional amendment, and therefore may be challenged as violating the state constitution. (In fact, it is before the state courts now.) But in order to be overturned the initiative must be proven to be unconstitutional or repealed by a vote of the people, not just a vote of the legislature. California Constitution article II, section 10(c) provides:

The Legislature . . . may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

Prop. 22 did not permit such an amendment.

The following is a press release from the Indiana Supreme Court:

“Jon Krahulik was a genuine, warm and caring person. He was a wonderful colleague whose presence was greatly enjoyed during his all too brief service on our bench. We valued his sense of humor and his commitment to justice. We were very pleased to hear that his health had improved for a period of time, but very sad to learn he was taken from us so soon,” said Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

Chief Justice Shepard served with Justice Krahulik’s during his entire time on the bench.

---

“I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Jon D. Krahulik and express my deep sympathy to his wonderful family.

“During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Jon D. Krahulik made an enormous contribution to Indiana law. In opinion after opinion, both criminal and civil, he helped give new law that resolved unanswered questions and updated old rules to the needs of the 1990’s, including providing the leadership that created the new Indiana Rules of Evidence. Jon Krahulik made a significant, lasting, positive mark on Indiana law.

“Beyond his contributions as a justice, Jon Krahulik was legendary in his commitment to the members of his family and to the many young lawyers who trained under him. I know they share deeply in this loss,” said Justice Frank Sullivan.

Justice Sullivan succeeded Krahulik on Indiana ‘s highest court on Novermber 1, 1993. Both were appointed by former Governor (now U.S. Senator) Evan Bayh.

Justice Krahulik’s biography is available here.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has today released its opinion in State of Indiana v. Fred L. Nix. Also, seven of the oral arguments taking place before the Indiana Supreme Court today and tomorrow are available for viewing online here.

Now on eBay: A copy of the historic George W. Bush v. Albert Gore decision of the Supreme Court signed by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

WISH-TV carries a report titled, “Governor Asks For State Of Emergency Declaration.”

Indiana is in a state of emergency, but there is no reason for alarm. The Governor asked for the declaration. It puts Indiana in line for Federal reimbursement for hurricane bills.

Right now, Indiana is paying for everything from the fairgrounds shelter to the time and resources of law officers who have headed south.